Supreme Court justices get it wrong on Voting Rights Act

I was highly disappointed but not totally surprised by the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision which essentially tosses out Sections 4 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act. These very important pre-clearance provisions significantly affect the ability for minorities to get equal treatment when redistricting and other actions greatly affecting voting rights are considered.

In my opinion, racism and discrimination certainly are still “alive and well.” While many people thought the election of Barack Obama as the first black president hailed the end to racism in the country, one need only look at the vitriolic language used by many politicians of the opposite party when discussing anything President Obama has tried to do as evidence that racism certainly hasn’t diminished. In fact, the many polarized positions taken against most of the Administration actions, especially against minorities holding high offices, in my opinion, clearly have their basis in racial animas.

One need only remember that 38 states in the last General Election enacted laws focused on or resulting in suppressing the voting rights of certain groups. This fact alone should be convincing evidence that protecting the civil rights of all people when redistricting or laws affecting voting are being proposed is essential to assuring the rights of all voters and all potential minority candidates.

The Supreme Court, in my opinion, got it wrong and it is now up to both political parties to unite and assure timely Congressional action to remedy this mistake.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

Thirteen GOP congressmen voted to pass a Bill S.744 with provisions giving American citizens jobs to unlawful aliens with a W work visa in construction, hospitality and long term healthcare jobs low income American citizens already have.

To "stick a fork" in American citizens, these congressmen passed a bill that states that unlawful aliens do not have to have the Affordable Care insurance so employers will hire unlawful aliens so they don't have to comply with regulations that comes with this insurance. So I agree, yes there is discrimination and racism in the White House.

Sunday, Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), the Democrat sponsor of the illegal alien amnesty bill which made its way through the U.S. Senate, said their would be mass riots in our streets if the Republican majority blocks the bill when it comes to the House.

Schumer made the following, veiled threats on CNN's State of the Union:

"This has the potential of becoming the next major civil rights movement. I could envision in the late summer or early fall if Boehner tries to bottle the bill up or put something in without a path to citizenship — if there’s no path to citizenship, there’s not a bill — but if he tries to bottle it up or do things like that, I could see a million people on the Mall in Washington."

He did not say specifically, who the rioters would be, but one could presume he wasn't talking about Senatorial staffers.

No, Schumer was referring to the millions of illegal aliens, many of whom have violent criminal histories in this country, but who would still be eligible for amnesty, and now even U.S. citizenship under the Schumer/Rubio proposal.

While it may be outrageous for one body of Congress to threaten another with civil unrest over passage of a particular piece of legislation, it would not be the first time this has occurred, in recent history.

In 2008, Congress approved the $850 billion bailout of Wall Street, but not before the public overwhelmingly objected, which prompted the House of Representatives to initially reject the bill.

Despite our objections, many Congressmen who only days earlier were adamantly opposed to any such measure, returned and voted to approve the bailout and even added $150 billion to the original bill. Why would lawmakers only a month away from an election make such a vastly unpopular move?

Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) seems to have answered this question, though the press largely ignored the stunning information he divulged.

Congressman Sherman on the House floor told his colleagues:

"Many of us were told in private conversations that if we voted against this bill on Monday that the sky would fall, the market would drop two or three thousand points the first day, another couple thousand points the second day, and a few members were even told that there would be martial law in America if we voted no."

It is obvious to all but the most ardent of Obama worshipers, ours is no longer a nation of laws, but one of men...We have now sunken to the level of a banana republic, complete with a Marxist dictator and his spendthrift wife.

Thirty-eight states enacted laws to help prevent voter fraud Mr. Vezeau. There isn't a thing wrong with asking a person to present a photo ID to prove that they are who they say they are before casting a vote. People like Mr. Vezeau would rather allow fraud to take place because democrats know the vast majority of the people committing voter fraud are casting their votes for the democrat party.

Why do democrats think the color of your skin determines one's ability to obtain a ID?
Everyone will be required to have a ID for Obamacare, but you don't hear progressives complaining about that.
Why is it ok to ask people to get an ID for Obamacare, but when it comes to requiring an ID for voting it's considered racist?